Zevachim 59

Today's daf is and we are two lines from the bottom of we began the sixth paragraph which as we saw picks up with a fifth paragraph left off and that is a mikvah that even though it's stating that is like so far according to the entire base according to only the part of the but the bottom line is has a dinner we explained that maybe that's why the took place the even though the says clearly that told us the it's a dinner and the says the that the went with a of which meaning it was governed by the that governs our stuff that was done in the base of wasn't there a lot of the is this and was going like the and was going that it either way from the I just a little bit into a discussion where exactly was the meaning was the it maybe it was perhaps it was and in the course of its lengthy detailed technical discussion the mentioned a mission of mission was discussing the that was on the the purpose of the was twofold number one the every day would take coals from the bring it into the and use those coals for the that was brought in the additionally on when the were burned on the them is actually saying weren't burned on the Marocha Gidai, rather they were burned on this Marocha Shniya. Mishna says that it was important for the Marocha Shniya to be connected to Pesach of Oylam Mayid, and as a result, it had to be removed four Amos to the north of the Kiyor Marocha D'Roymis. And somehow by doing that, it would end up being more Pesach Oylam Mayid. And the Gemara backed in therefore to a position of what the Tanna of that Mishna must have held about where geographically the Mizbeach was in the Azara. Because if the Mizbeach was completely on the Darom side of the Azara, then moving the Marocha Shniya four Amos from the Kiyor Marocha D'Roymis wouldn't really get you very far. You would have to move it 27 Amos or 22 Amos. You'd have to move it really, really far. The Gemara L'Maaseh came out that the Tanna of that Mishna could hold either the entire Mizbeach was B'Tzafon, or the Mizbeach was Chetzi B'Darom, Chetzi B'Tzafon. There was a Machlokes to make it work with each one of those positions. Regardless, the Gemara picks up on that note. Again, we discussed that in great detail in yesterday's daf. But on that note, trying to understand who the Tanna of that Mishna says, the Gemara of Rav Shmuel says, "Rav Shmuel says, 'I'm going to be a Yosi HaGlili.'" You know the Tanna of that Mishna is it's from Yosi HaGlili. Meaning the Mishna is going that the entire Mizbeach was B'Tzafon, but the Tanna of the Mishna that holds that the entire Mizbeach was B'Tzafon is Rav Yosi HaGlili. Where do we find this Rav Yosi HaGlili? The Tanna of Rav Yosi HaGlili says, Mizbeach was B'Tzafon." And it also says the Shochet Oysai the Mizbeach of Pesach So, Rav Yosi HaGlili had a S'vara. He had two P'sukim in the Torah that he believed contradicted themselves. Number one, there's a Pasuk that says that the Kiyor was supposed to be between the Oylam Mayid and the Mizbeach. So, it sounds like you want to know where the Kiyor is. It's in the Azarah. It's smack between the Ohel Moed and the Mizbeach. Mitzad sheni, Rabbeinu Yitzchak really had another pasuk that seemed to suggest that the Mizbeach had to be facing the entrance of the Ohel Moed, and it couldn't be anything else between the Mizbeach and the Ohel Moed. So, his question was, it's a stira. Here you say that the kiyor is supposed to be between the Mizbeach and the Ohel Moed, and here I have a pasuk that says that nothing is supposed to be between the Mizbeach and the Ohel Moed. Meaning, the Mizbeach itself is what's supposed to be pesach Ohel Moed. So, answer from Rabbeinu Yitzchak really, heichan hoyinu notes. So, how did you make this work? How do you reconcile these two pesukim? So, he says, bein ha'ulam ulam Mizbeach mashach kima klappe darom. You're right. You have to say that although the pasuk says that the kiyor was supposed to be between the Ohel Moed and the Mizbeach, it wasn't literally between the Ohel Moed and the Mizbeach. It was mashach kima, it was removed a little bit to the darom side of the Mizbeach, but not literally between the Mizbeach and the Ohel Moed. Because, it's true, there's a pasuk that says, venosasa es hakiyor bein Ohel Moed uvein Mizbeach, but there's another pasuk that says, ve'es Mishkan Ohel Moed pesach Ohel Moed. So, I have to reconcile these two pesukim. I'm forced to say that the pasuk that says that the kiyor was between the Ohel Moed and the Mizbeach is not meant to be taken literally. Problem is, and this is really the backdrop for the next half of Amud Gemara, is why is it a stira? If you look at the pasuk that says that the kiyor had to be between the Ohel Moed and the Mizbeach, it says, venosasa es hakiyor bein Ohel Moed uvein Mizbeach. Says, longer as it's between an area called Ohel Moed and an area called Mizbeach, it's going to be fine. When the pasuk says, ve'es Mizbach Ohel Moed sham pesach Mishkan Ohel Moed, the Torah says that the Mizbach Ohel had to be by the pesach of the Mishkan Ohel Moed. Specifically by the pesach. So, why can't you just draw it up that the Mizbach Ohel is going to be by the Pesach of the Mishkan oil maid. Meaning there's going to be nothing between the Mizbeach and the Pesach of the oil maid. Stating that the Pesach was only 10 amos wide. So that it's possible to put the kiyor a little to the darum side of the Pesach of the oil maid, but it could still be between the oil maid and the Mizbeach. The Mizbeach is 32 amos. It's a 32 amos square. The Pesach is only 10 amos. So it's true there can't be anything between the Pesach of the oil maid and the Mizbeach. But nobody says there can't be anything between the oil maid and the Mizbeach. The criteria that second pasuk that Rebbe Yishmael said we quoted said there is Mizbach oil maid some Pesach Mishkan oil maid. See right, you'll have nothing between the Pesach of the oil maid and the Mizbeach. But at the same time you'll be able to have the kiyor between the oil maid and the Mizbeach. Not between the Pesach of the oil maid and the Mizbeach. Rebbe Yishmael felt that that wasn't a possibility. So much so that Rebbe Yishmael said I have no choice but to distort the simple meaning of the pasuk and say that even though the Torah seems to want you to put the kiyor literally bein oil maid and the Mizbeach, it's not going to be literally. It's going to be mushach kimo klapedora. So the Gemara is going to say now from here you see what Rebbe Yishmael must have thought in terms of where exactly the Mizbeach was and based on the way his blueprint of the Azarah was, there was no way to make these two things work. And let's just play it out. It says the Gemara mikoso what does Rebbe Yishmael hold in terms of where the Mizbeach was in the Azarah. He holds the Mizbeach was in the Azarah. So what's the story like we just spoke out. So what's the big deal? Why can't there be nothing between the Pesach oil maid and the Mizbeach and just move the kiyor to the darum side of the Pesach. The whole Pesach that's on the darum side is going to be sakakol five amos because the entire Pesach of the oil maid was 10 amos. Five of it is on the top inside, five of it is going to be on the on the darn side. Just just have five amos where there's nothing between the mizbeach and the oil mode. That's how you make kind the second passuk base mizbach oil mode some passuk mishkan oil mode. And right to the darn side of where the passuk is, bein oil mode and bein mizbeach, you're going to put the kiyor. What's the big deal? Additionally, and if you're going to tell me dino bein oil mode and mizbeach, inami because kodesh kodesh oil mode and kodesh kodesh even if you're going to tell me that we holds that kodesh oil mode and kodesh kodesh which means as we saw in yesterday's daf, today's daf is a continuation of yesterday's daf, first part of it. So that the passuk oil mode is treated like the passuk oil mode kodesh so that if the torah says there is mizbach oil mode some passuk mishkan oil mode, it also means that it has to be some passuk mishkan oil mode. So if the kiyor can't be between the mizbeach and the passuk oil mode, it also can't be between the mizbeach and the passuk oil mode, but it's still not such a big deal. No because oil mode and mizbeach between oil mode and mizbeach, it's still not a problem because how wide was the passuk oil mode? It was 20 amos wide, which means 10 amos of it was on the top inside, 10 amos of it was on the darn side. If the entire mizbeach is on the darn side and the mizbeach is a 32 amos square, so even if you don't want to put the kiyor between the passuk oil mode and the mizbeach, so 10 amos of it is off limits, but there's a lot more space. There's more of the oil mode beyond the passuk which is considered oil mode if you hold that the kodesh oil mode and the kodesh oil mode is kodesh and just put the kiyor between the mizbeach and that area. So clearly if we really felt there was no way to reconcile these psukim, he was not of the opinion that the entire mizbeach was on darn. Because if the mizbeach was on darn, it's easy. And the gemara says the same will be true inami because of kodesh kodesh darn. Even if we holds that the mizbeach was kodesh kodesh darn, the same way we just made because of oil mode and darn, it's still not a problem cuz if half of the was in the half of the 16 let's just pick it out outside. How wide is the on the side the entire is 10 it's split between and so five are on the side and even if you want to work with the entire cuz you get to tell me what the the was 20 which means half of it is 10. So at the end of the day they're still going to be six cuz there's 16 on the on the side and the most there is is 10 of on the side which means there's still six of there's a little bit of on the side of the where you can put the so you'll be able to be in the and you'll also be a so we can so we can make this over says the half of the half of the we can make this over then we can make this over we can make this over cuz we can make this over you can't put it right to the because it's still not you're still not going to have the more the and you're saying but okay so then what's the problem there's still six to play with it must be the but the entire was the so I'm going to put the on the side of the so we can put the on the side of the Either way the bottom line is it says the only way to understand why couldn't learn this is cuz he held the entire was so what if the entire is if if the entire is then there's no way to move the to the side of the and for it to still be between the and the the oil may aid. Because if you're going to move it to the Darum side of the Mizbeach, then there's going to be no Mizbeach on the other side of it. So, the only way to understand why I really had him a book and no way of understanding the is by understanding that really must have held him at time as they were but the more I ask the obvious question and that is all suffering but then why can't you just put the key on the suffering side make the same exact that the more I make meaning we're saying you had somehow we're working with this premise that the key was going to be to the south to the Darum side of the Mizbeach. If it's going to be the Darum side of the Mizbeach and the Mizbeach is completely the top and then obviously it's not going to be the oil may aid of the Mizbeach. But why couldn't the key just be on the suffering side? I'm not sure if really knew the following positive suffering there's an extra suffering part of me Caleb that it was not allowed to be any Caleb on the suffering side of the Mizbeach. Meaning that there couldn't be any Caleb and it had to be on the Darum and really held that the entire Mizbeach was the top. So, if you're going to now move the put the key on the Darum side obviously it's not being the oil may aid of the Mizbeach. Very simple. So, it's not being the oil may aid of the Mizbeach either positive says but it's not a key of the oil may aid of the Mizbeach. Must be was much of Caleb Darum but the positive is not supposed to be taken literally says the man the following positive really who is a kind of that argues with really but let's have kind of the price of Caleb Darum she ate suffering part of me Caleb that Caleb and I Mizbeach. Wow, so really holds the suffering has to be part of me Caleb. That's how he knew that the key couldn't be on suffering and that's how he knew that he had no choice but to distort the literal meaning of the positive regarding the key. That happens to be a sheet of Caleb that holds suffering that there was nothing on the suffering part of the Mizbeach even the Mizbeach itself couldn't be between the shallow side. Either way said there were three sheets of the of exactly where the Mizbeach was. We had one sheet of that said that it was on the suffering part cool as that the top of the height started the that said we had just saw from this price also the entire was we had yesterday that the was the just had the said there couldn't be anything but even the so fine that she had they couldn't be a key or in something they couldn't even be a in meaning it was the three sheets was it cool something was it cool or was it something now this is all with regards to the what about the that was inside the that's the home that she says in truman that the was it was smack in the middle of the between the on the one side on the other side facing the the it was in the middle of the so literally the midpoint of the right in the smack in the middle that's exactly says that she had with the premium was there's an interesting from the and it's interesting that the was the to the so far the child that was asked so far was there was a show that was knocked down was a small show and this they were making an extension building campaign the whole 9 yards and now they're building a they're building a new show or be it a bigger show and when they designed the bigger show so the architect drew it up with the beam instead of it being in the middle of the base of it was going to be towards the front of the base of now the previous show that had the beam in the middle of the base of the way most shows have it but apparently the architect drew it up where it was going to be really really nice by doing it this way it was pushing for purposes it was going to be in the front of the base like NASA's. And then a shiloh broke out. You're even allowed to do that. Maybe a base like NASA's is not supposed to be the beam is supposed to be in the middle. Who says you're even allowed to put it in the front? So the shiloh was sent to the local rabbi who forwarded the shiloh over to the sofer. He wanted to know the sofer, is it okay to build a shul where the beam is going to be in the in the front of the shul? So the ever says it's a ramble. The ramble in tila perkin olive says bynum table empty bases like NASA's. He's supposed to make sure that the beam which the ramble explains was used for Torah. It was used for the for the rabonim to get up and and you know, to speak from behind the pulpit. That was the purpose of the beam. And the ramble says the beam was built the empty base like NASA's. Why? Could they give a very practical reason for it? Because he just wanted to be equidistant from everybody. If you're going to be in in the front, then people that sit in the back aren't going to be able to hear so well. And if it's going to be in the back, people in the front. And if it's going to be to the one side, people on the other side won't be able to hear. So you just put it in the middle, says the ramble very push it practice like this. Everybody is going to be able to hear equally. Says the mission all that based on the time of the ramble, I think we could be on something that I've seen cuz he said I've walked into NASA's and I see the beams in the front of the shul. And really it's connected to the ramble. The ramble says it's supposed to be in the middle. The Torah is very partial cuz the ramble himself gave a reason for it. He said the reason is the shiloh. So he says once upon a time there were very large in the big shuls where the beam would have been on one side of the shul. You maybe you wouldn't have been able to hear from the other side of the shul. But he said today most shuls are small. You have shibolas. They're not so big and it doesn't matter where you're sitting. You can hear just as good. So it says this mission. He says it's based on that that I wanted to be on the fact that I've seen many shuls where people they put the beam in the front but the bottom line is the Khsam Sofer says and he tells the Shul this Rav Yaffa Kiva and of course you know you went immediately to the right place. Somebody asks you a Shyla you're supposed to open up a Ramah. A half a Hilchos Tvilah Perek Aleph Halacha Gimel and you're supposed to show this Kessef Mishnah where it sounds like it's not the end of the world. Rav Kessef Mishnah already said he saw it and the Kessef Mishnah said already that he was Malames Chos. So doesn't sound like it's it's such a big deal. But the Maiseh the Khsam Sofer himself wasn't happy with it. And the Khsam Sofer asked a Gishaka Kasha. Yes, that we all know the Gemara Maseches Sukkah. The Gemara talks about the Shul that existed in Alexandria. Alexandria Shel Mitzrayim. The Gemara says Rav Yehuda Mishley Rav Diu Fluston Shel Alexandria Shel Mitzrayim Lo Rav B'Kfoydin Shel Yisrael. It was so unbelievable it was it was just an it was an amazing sight to see. And the Gemara goes on to say that they had this massive Shul where there were thousands and thousands and thousands of of Jews that Davened there. And it was such a big Shul that it was impossible to hear anything. So what happened was when the Shliach Tzibur would get up and he would say Chazaras Hashatz he would go my damn he would say Kaddish and they would pick up these flags and they would wave flags like this people knew that the Bracha was being said to answer Amen. This is a Makor that you could answer Amen even if you didn't actually hear the Bracha. Our discussion in Halacha. But the bottom line is that's what they used to do. Says the Khsam Sofer go through that Bracha inside. Listen to a Diuk of the Khsam Sofer. So the Khsam the Bracha says that Kol Mishley Rav Diu Fluston Shel Alexandria Shel Mitzrayim Lo Rav B'Kfoydin Shel Yisrael. Given B'Sulki Gedola Hoiseh Stav Lifnei MiStav. Pa'am Im Shahu K'Flyim K'Yotzei Mitzrayim. Now that's a very big number. V'Ayu B'Ayan Aleph K'Neged Rosh Zahav K'Neged Ayan Aleph Shel Sanhedrin Gedola. Kol Achas B'Achas In A Prusah Me'Asar B'Achas Riba K'Gedola. U'Bimah Shel Eitz. And there was a Bimah. Where was the Bimah? B'Emtza'as In the middle of the Shul. The Chazan HaKnesses Omed Alav. V'Asu Doron B'Yadayim. V'Kiyemu K'Gil Anis Amen. Halach Min HaPsukim V'Halach Amen Amen Amen. V'Lo Yishlah of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men of all men Yeah, literally hundreds of thousands of Jews if that's what the Gamara says. And we nobody hear anything. They're literally they're waving flags and you have to from the bottom, right? You should be able to answer amen. But where is the bema? It was the answer base of if the mission is right in the way he understands the realm of that the whole purpose of putting the bema the answer base of is for practical reasons. So people should be able to hear equally. So why did the Gamara have to emphasize that the bema was in the middle of the base of this? There was no practical significance to anyways flag. So you could have put it on the side you have another flag says the safer. Nobody heard. I mean this was you couldn't hear anything anyways. So why was there a paid to make sure that the bema was going to be in the middle of the base of this? Says the safer it's clear to me from this Gamara that it's not just practical that you're supposed to put the bema in the answer base of this. That's the way it's supposed to be. A base of this has a and the way the base of this is bema in the middle of the of the base of this. There's an addition the front the rabbi is one side the president on the other side and you have a bema in the middle. That's the way it was supposed to look and that is the way of a base of this regardless of what you could hear or you can hear. What is the means of this? If you want to look it up it's in the same way the way it discusses this mission. But he says the bottom line is that that's the way it's supposed to be. The question is why? Where does this Torah from? He says I believe it comes from the fact that we know that a base hakneses is a mikdash ma'at. And the base hakneses which supposed to try to make it as similar to the base hamikdash as we could possibly make it. And just like the base hamikdash, the heichal had a mizbeach. The mizbeach hapnimi and the mizbeach hapnimi was in the middle of the heichal. That's where it was. It wasn't on the front. It wasn't on the back. He says, don't you think you could have argued that maybe the mizbeach should have been a little closer to the aron kodesh? To the aron the aron. Make it as close to the front of the mizbeach as possible. But there was a Torah. The Torah was it was supposed to be bemerkaz. It was supposed to be be'emtza. That's where it was supposed to be. And as a result, our mikdash ma'at was supposed to make it as similar as possible. And he brings rayos that the bimah is somehow related to the mizbeach. He says a shana rabba, we take our heshanos and we're makeif the bimah. Just like once upon a time they were makeif the mizbeach. Regardless, the bimah is like the mizbeach hapnimi. Why the mizbeach hapnimi? Because base hakneses is inside. So it's like the heichal. And by the heichal, the rashei chomer says the same thing. And everybody agrees this is the way it's supposed to be. That's the bottom line. It's interesting that the Netziv was asked a very similar shaila. It's in Meishiv Davar, chelek aleph, siman tes vav. And again, same shaila. Question was, can you build a shul where you're going to put the bimah towards the front, closer to the aron kodesh, not being in the middle of the base hakneses? And he writes a very, very similar teshuvah to the Chasam Sofer. Comes from a little bit of a different angle, but the same punchline. That the reason the bimah is supposed to be in the middle isn't simply due to practical reasons, because it's a mikdash ma'at and it's supposed to be done like the base hamikdash. And in the heichal, the mizbeach hapnimi was in the middle. So therefore, this is supposed to be in the middle as well. But it's interesting interesting the way he starts it. He says that I'm a little worried. Do I think it's such a big deal? He says, no, I don't think it's such a big deal. But you know, this is something that you're changing mesorah and you're doing it befarhesya. You know, to change mesorah still a height is one thing. But bederech hashinuy where no one's watching and you're shomer ben hamazikin, you know, maybe you can get away with it but to do it befarhesya, that every is going to walk into he's going to see they already moved the beam up to the front. You know, one is going to leave lead to another because I don't think this is such a big deal. But you know what? It is a slippery slope and it can lead to something very very bad. You know, I'm sorry for very often used to write in his whenever somebody would present them with a new idea, he would say is awesome and I it's a famous line from he quotes it in this right here and then it also says it. He says in the mirror call call this awesome in a so they were both into the same lines as well but the bottom line is just something light and interesting that's learned out from this so after the and the next is a a classic classic when you're in Brisk. So the all my this should have come if the was meaning it was ruined call her should do so and you all of her so if the became part of it got chopped off for example, so all that you at the time that the is is possible. Said we had a once upon a time to support this which I can't remember the he said came from from see over heard the following that the was saying in the name of that how do you know this that should have come all the are possible and never as they we supposed to really the on top of the so yesterday we saw actually said in what does all of mean? All of means next to it. You in the first mission of said what does all of mean? Literally all of a that it's but he had a Mahala. He was bothered. The purpose of the misbehave is to chef. Not on the misbehave. Allah, you know what Allah means? It has to be showing not closer. Rashi says Allah is like this way. When there's a misbehave then it's without always for Schuman but if there's no misbehave then there's no always for Schuman. Either way rather that this must be the person. Says the had a little bit of a different version of this Allah of misbehave and if come. That this Allah of misbehave and if come is true not only if you chef the animal while the misbehave is not come. But even if someone is merely not an animal. He says I raise you over. So you have a carbon Allah now the misbehave is not come even though you weren't macro of the carbon yet. The Allah is you can have the Allah of misbehave and if come. So according to the only time the misbehave and if come disqualifies a carbon is if you actually chef the carbon. So if you chef the carbon now the misbehave became not come now you can't do the avoid. According to even if you were only not the carbon you didn't chef the carbon. You were merely not it and then the misbehave became problem that's enough that you shouldn't be able to do the avoid. So we're familiar with Allah of the one carbon becomes pushed away becomes possible even if later the pool goes away. It remains possible forever. Rather held that about when an animal is alive it can't become the So even though when the misbehave was not come for the moment you weren't able to do the avoid. But being that the animal was alive so there was no the way. Now that the misbehave was fixed now you could chef it and you could do the avoid. What's the problem? It holds by the way. So once the animal became mitzvah after it became hectic dish before the mizbeach became when the mizbeach was pogel. So, now even though you fixed the mizbeach afterwards, there's no way to be able to bring it. So, this shiva of whether you would have the halacha mizbeach shnifkam for an animal that was merely hectic dish, but wasn't shackle yet the high is totally in whether by the high mitzvah or whether by the high mitzvah. Rav by the high mitzvah. That's where the halacha mizbeach shnifkam is only true if you already shocked it. But, there is no by the high mitzvah. As you can see, all the kasham shall you actually live in the mizbeach. All the kasham that were around before the mizbeach was built, the mizbeach is built and afterwards the mizbeach was built. So, the halacha is possible. So, the price is a little bit awesome as we'll see. The gamora is going to have four or five attempts to try to understand possible shana what the price is saying. But, for now the words of the price. So, somebody had kasham before the mizbeach. There was no mizbeach, but he had kasham. Then they build the mizbeach. Question is can I now take this kasham and bring it as a carbon or not? That's what the price is addressing. All the kasham shall you actually live in the mizbeach. The mizbeach is built and the mizbeach is built. So, great to the gamora. Why should this be possible? Why in the world should this be an issue? Why should there be a problem with kasham that you were not this before the mizbeach was built? Now that the mizbeach was built, any issue that you may have had, you don't have anymore. I don't know why you're going to tell me because I'm so lucky. But, this is already what's called the halacha may occur. Meaning the sugi is of halacha may occur. There's a halacha may occur on my way or there's something that was halacha may occur the moment it became hectic dish is subject to the halacha may occur or Meaning the sugi is of halacha may occur. There's a halacha may occur on my way or there's something that was halacha may occur the moment it became hectic dish is subject to the halacha may occur or not subject to the halacha may occur. I mean that it's a halacha may occur, it's obvious that there's no mission or no price that says before it's one way or the other. If you're going to tell me that the way you're supposed to read this price is literally that we're talking about kasham that somebody was not this before the mizbeach was built and even if when the Mizbeach is built later, it's still possible. So, you see that something that's like this cuz the moment you made it was already it was cuz there was no Mizbeach to be it on. So, you see that something that's is subject to the laws of and we know what's obviously it can't be that must be that that's not what this means. You know how you read the call you actually on the Mizbeach. So, this is going back to the times of the first base Imagine that. So, somebody had at the times of the first base then the base was destroyed and the animal is still alive. It made it through now there's already and you want to go bring it now for maybe that's what the price is saying that that that was around not actually cuz that would be it was around at the time of the Mizbeach it wasn't then the Mizbeach was cuz the base was and now you want to bring it during but the says how you going to bring that that's an old animal. And we know an animal can't be too old two three whatever depending on the but it's called this animal is for sure too old for you to be able to be you know what the price of probably means not actually not talking about three shine this is not a that's not what's going on over here actually we're talking about someone was a carbon the Mizbeach was fine then it was and then somebody fixed the Mizbeach so what's the and still you see it even though you didn't it doesn't say you did it over here so isn't this a to and you see the of Mizbeach is true even if the animal wasn't because but isn't this right to not like so the says is going to tell you this is a price price we did reconstructive surgery to this price the price of said one thing you know four renditions later we finally have a price of the left to the edited this brice so much edited a little bit more a brice is telling me regarding even though the brice doesn't say anything about brice doesn't say anything about so once you insert the words nifka you might as well insert the word nishka too as well as a result this brice could stand with anybody you want this brice to stand with a kasho but I'll ask you something else should rav really be so worried rav could be involved in this discussion of misbe nifkan call a kochen nishkuta how does it stand with something else rav said from misbe nicker mack tearing spin coil mine if the misbe was nicker obviously the misbe that's where the was bought so you can bring the on the misbe you don't physically have to bring the on the misbe but you can bring it on the place where the misbe was so what do you see from there that you don't even need the misbe to to bring the so how could you tell me that if the misbe is nifkan you're missing a little piece of the misbe that's it all the are possible why because you have no way of of doing this it's going to be a possible all of a sudden they going to get into all the that if there's a doctor so why do you even need a in the first place so we're not going to do that but but the bottom line is is that the whole seems to be predicated on the fact that if there was no misbe so there's no way to do this it's for that reason all the are going to be possible question is only the that was even the that weren't but it's predicated on the idea that if you're missing a corner of the misbe so to speak the whole misbe is off limits rav holds you don't even need a misbe rav holds you could bring the where the misbe was misbe not misbe nicker the whole misbe was picked up and it was removed says rav be mack the spin coil mine so you would think that if the mizbei'ach achitzon is not the same mizbei'ach. But if the mizbei'ach achitzon is missing a little piece, that shouldn't disqualify the whole avodah. Says the Gemara, you have to say "K'd'amar Rav." Rav said "Modeh hu Rabi Yehudah b'damim." "Hacha nami modeh hu b'damim." Just like Rabi Yehudah said with regards to something else. What's that something else? It's going to take us into tomorrow's daf. We'll see that in a moment. But just like Rabi Yehudah, Rav said with regards to something else that Rabi Yehudah was modeh b'damim, you'll have to say here too that even though Rav holds that mizbei'ach she'nekar maktirin ketores bimkoimo, it's only the ketores, it's not dam. It's it's a mizbei'ach. It's a makom ha'ro'ui l'haktarah, but it's not a makom ha'ro'ui l'damim, it's not a makom ha'ro'ui l'zrikah. So it's true, you can remove the mizbei'ach hap'nimi and you can bring the ketores, but if the mizbei'ach achitzon is nifgam, it knocks out the entire mizbei'ach achitzon as it relates to zrikah. Because makom ha'mizbei'ach is like the mizbei'ach, but only l'minyan ketores, not with regards to zrikah. Excellent. Before we go further, because although we're in the middle of a cheshbon, but the Gemara is going to digress now completely really into tomorrow's daf to just one hour. So the Gemara mentioned over here a braisa. The braisa was very sussam, it was very ambiguous, not clear what the braisa means. "Kol hakotzim shehayu acharei nivneh mizbei'ach v'achar kach nivneh mizbei'ach pesulim." Ultimately the braisa said that what the the braisa is referring to is the halacha of mizbei'ach she'nifgam. We thought we had a right to bring a raya from like Rav, and the Gemara said "You don't have a right to anybody from this braisa. This is not a braisa you can bring rayos to, because this whole braisa is is very unclear, and we had to rework the braisa." So just like you can't ask kashas from this braisa, you can't ask There's some braisas in Shas that are just sort of off limits. You can't bring rayos from them, you can't ask kashas from them. Clearly there was some mistake in this braisa. This is an example of such a braisa. But one of the attempts the Gemara made to explain the braisa was maybe the braisa is talking about somebody that had a carbon from bias trician. He was around by bias trician, had a chef solo. He was mocked this and he was going to bring it as a carbon. Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzaradan, colors Yohania, colors Sidkio, the whole nine yards. Paras Modai, and this animal amazingly makes it around the bias shani. Now bias shani comes along, he wants to bring this as a carbon. This was a carbon. He's been waiting for this day. Could you bring it an answer? The answer says well, that's maybe that's what the price is referring to. But wait a minute, how could there be such a price? We know that an animal has to be of a certain age in order for it to be right for a carbon. Once it gets beyond that age, it's called zokain. It's a zikna. So the this animal certainly is going to have a zikna. There's no animal that could be 70 plus years old and be right like carbon. What happened to the zikna? Twice this and this twice this is on noon summer so twice asks a kasha that if there's a zikna, how do you understand the following measures? So it's not every day that twice goes to measures. But twice over here has a a measure in the volume rabba where the measure says that when hamelach the young kasam is gone brought foreign, he brought cows as part of his hakrova. The measure is going to talk soon about the amount of carbon is that hamelach brought the young kasam is gone the young kasam is based on measures. So he brought foreign. Those foreign have a little history. Those were the same foreign that the navium were that used to carry the orange in the mission. So you had foreign that used to carry the orange when they were in the midbar. Those same foreign were the foreign that hamelach brought. Frank twice that kasha so zikna and these foreign are hundreds of years old. How in the world is that possible? So it says twice this you have to say to Russia. And ordinarily it's only that would be possible. It must have been a Russia that in this case it's going to be okay. The mendel in the case of it says that what's the beer? He said the beer is probably very simple." This idea that an animal can't be old in order for it to be right as a carbon is not because there's some technical halacha that has to be of a certain age. Once you're at a certain age, so now you can drink, now you can drive, right? Now you can do certain things. That's not what it is. It's based on the animal itself. As an animal gets older, it becomes schwacher and that Torah wants a young, fresh, gesundt animal to be brought on a on the on the mizbeach. But an older animal, at that point already, it's not so right. Being that these animals miraculously were able to live hundreds of years, obviously they were made up of something else. Hashem performed a miracle. There was something supernatural about these parim that they were able to survive so long. But the sounds like they had frish of they had frish. So says that Rebbe Akiva that it's poshut that that's the reason it was going to be okay. It's the the the chiddush here is the fact that these parim were alive. But once you establish that this miracle took place, he says, "I don't think it's so schwer. It's a rasha." I hear, but says Rebbe Akiva that then the svara is poshut. The svara is because the whole idea of the posul zikna is that there's something different physically about the animals. These animals were not physically different. Being that they weren't physically different, it makes perfect sense that this should be okay. And then Rebbe Akiva then concludes with the punchline. But before the punchline, a little bit of background. Yesterday we spoke a little bit about the akeda. We spoke a lot about the akeda. The emes is there's a a big kashe that the rishonim and achronim ask regarding eglah she'ufa and that's based on a mishna in Pirkei Avos from all places, Pirkei Mishnayos. The mishna over there says "Asarah d'varim nivru erev Shabbos bein hashmashos." There were 10 things that were created erev Shabbos bein hashmashos. The ohr and piyos and er and piyos and keshes and hamon and hamathe and hashomer and hamichtav and the eshon and af and mazikin and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and the eshon and bein hashmashos is ayil shel Avraham Avinu. So it's like the fraga, ayil shel Avraham Avinu was created erev Shabbos bein hashmashos? If it was created erev Shabbos bein hashmashos, then l'chora when Avraham Avinu brought it as an olah, it was already a zaken. If it wasn't zaken, what happened to the pasul ziknah? So truth is, if you look in Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher and look at the Ra'avad on this Mishnah, so the Ra'avad says, what does it mean that the ayil was created erev Shabbos bein hashmashos? It doesn't mean the ayil itself. It means it was destined at that point that the ayil would one day be nechas b'svach b'karnav, and that it one day would be brought as a korban. T'muras Yitzchak. Instead of Yitzchak being brought as a korban, it would be the ayil that would be brought as a korban. But not that it was literally created erev Shabbos bein hashmashos. Why did the Ra'avad say that? Maybe to answer this kasha. Because otherwise, you can have a pasul ziknah. But the Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher is a very big chiddush, even though the Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher is the Mishnah as the Rashi is the the Gemara. That's the pashut p'shat. But really it's a chiddush because there's midrashim that say clearly that the ayil was created literally erev Shabbos bein hashmashos. What happened to the pasul ziknah? So from Yaakov Avinu, right after he explains this Tosefta, this idea that the parim that were around in the midbar are the parim that HaMelech is bringing, he says with this you can answer this kasha as well. How do you understand that ayil shel Avraham Avinu was what? Was created bein hashmashos? What happened to the pasul ziknah? It's the same teretz. Because the whole y'sod of the pasul ziknah is it's not shlecha. It's old. It's shlecha. And the idea is to bring a younger, healthier animal as a korban. This animal obviously was young and healthy, otherwise it wouldn't have been around so long. So being that it was anyways young and healthy, that's why it was okay. It's interesting by the way, there's another significance, another connection between erev Shabbos bein hashmashos of that first week of bri'as ha'olam and the Akeidah. And that is that Avraham Avinu goes to the Akeidah and he rides on a donkey. Al ha'chamor. Vayachlish es ha'chamor. Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer in perek lamed daled says, this Hamor that Avraham Avinu rode on, who Hamor ben ha'ason she'nivra bein ha'shmashos. So, one of the things that was created erev Shabbos bein ha'shmashos was the pi ha'ason. That's the pi ha'ason of Parshas Balak theme, of of the story of Bilam and the donkey. So, says the the Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, the Hamor that Avraham Avinu rode to the Akedah was the son, who Hamor ben ha'ason she'nivra bein ha'shmashos. It's interesting, Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer continues and says, who Hamor, that's also the Hamor she'rocha Moshe b'vo'o l'Mitzrayim. When Moshe Rabbeinu took his family, he left his wife and his house and he goes to Mitzrayim. Now, that's going to be the start of the Geulah. So, he rides on a donkey. That donkey was the same exact donkey that Avraham Avinu rode on. And then the Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer says, who Hamor she'rocha ben David Melech Yisrael. This is the Hamor that David Melech is going to ride on. She'nemaar What's that Hamor? Oni v'rochev al ha'chamor. It's the same Hamor. So, it's the Hamor of Avraham Avinu by the Akedah, it's the Hamor that Moshe Rabbeinu rides on when he goes to Mitzrayim, it's the Hamor that Mashiach ben David is is going to ride. That's the connection is they're all related to Geulah. The Akedah, of course, is the start that that escorts Klal Yisrael throughout the galus. Moshe Rabbeinu going to Mitzrayim, that's the start of the Geulah. And oni v'rochev al ha'chamor, that's Mashiach ben David. That, of course, is Geulah. But, what's the rest of the story? What's the history of this Hamor? It's ben ha'ason that was created bein ha'shmashos. So, the ayil that Avraham Avinu brought was from that erev Shabbos bein ha'shmashos and the Hamor is the son of the ason that was created erev Shabbos bein ha'shmashos. Something to think about. Either way, so we mentioned over here Rabbi Yehudah, that just like Rabbi Yehudah was moideh b'damim, so too, even though Rav said mizbei'ach she'necher maktiro k'tores min ha'koyim, he's moideh with regards to damim. My Rabbi Yehudah who is permitted to tell you what the braisa says, "B'yom ha'hu k'deish ha'melech taken hot so by your mouth who is referring to the day that Melech built the first base amigdas and you have to see the possuk inside possuk on the side by your mouth key days have a leg is taken hot sir I shall have no base a sham key also sham as I will have some in holy ash lemon key miss back on a so what is Melech do he was the toy hot sir sounds like he was the rich but the floor of the azar and the reason he did that was is because the Melech and was cut and it was too small may I know this I mean holy ash lemon there was no room on the back to bring all the carbonas that Melech brought so being that the Melech was too small he had no choice he had to make an extension the way Melech made an extension was by sanctifying the floor of the azara now that the rich azara has so now you have an extension you could bring carbonas on the floor that's the way the possuk reads literally says the in fact the very very simple that was what the possuk means very very simple Melech bringing carbonas so many carbonas as we're going to see in a moment there's no room on the to burn all these all these carbonas you can't wait till the next day it's going to be nicer so what are you supposed to do see he had to be the rich spot of the azara simply simply so you should have room to do the I don't know I see I don't know I see said I disagree but like for example the possuk says I don't know Melech I don't know it says that Melech brought a thousand oils now this possuk of I don't know Melech can't straight to what people think this is an often quoted possuk I don't know Melech is not referring to the I don't know to the contrary it's referring to before the was built a few years before the was built when there was a in Melech brought a thousand one day now that he brought the was a that he didn't have in the Mishkan. That Mizbeach, they had in the Midbar in the Mishkan, Moshe Rabbeinu and Betzalel's Mizbeach was on that Mizbeach that he went ahead and he brought a thousand olos. Okay, and that was okay. There was room for it. There was room to bring a thousand olos on that one day. Now, when Melech built the Beis Hamikdash, how many korbanos did he bring? Rashi brings in the pasuk and says, "Vayizbach es zivchei hashlomim asher laShem, bakar esrim u'shnayim elef." 22,000 bakar. The Gemara doesn't complete the pasuk. "Vetzoin me'ah elef esrim elef." And 120,000 tzon. "Vayachnchu es Mizbach es Beis Hashem Melech v'chol bnei Yisrael." So, there were 22,000 bakar and 120,000 tzon. 22,000 and 120,000 is 142,000. So, says the Gemara like says Rebbe Yosi, "On the old Mizbeach, Melech was able to bring a thousand olos. Now, how much did he bring?" A lot more than a thousand. He brought 142,000. But says, meaning 142 times the amount of korbanos. "Bakar esrim u'shnayim elef u'tzoin me'ah u'esrim elef." But says Rebbe Yosi, "If you do the math, it's going to come out zeh gadol mi'zeh." Really, there's more space on the new Mizbeach that Melech built than on the Mizbeach on the chutzos from from Moshe. And Rashi makes the cheshbon. Rashi says that the Mizbeach of Moshe Rabbeinu was five amos by five amos. But if you make a cheshbon of how much place there was to actually burn korbanos, meaning you have to minus the kronos, etc., you can end up with one amah. It was one amah by one amah. That's how much space there was. And on one amah by one amah, Melech was able to bring a thousand olos. The Mizbeach that Melech built for the Beis Hamikdash was much bigger. If you make the cheshbon of how much space there was to do haktara, it's 20 amos by 20 amos. 20 by 20 it's 400 square amos. As opposed to one by one, which is one. That means in terms of space, where you have to bring korbanos, So 400 times the amount of space on the new misbech than you had on the old misbech. If Hamelech was able to easily bring a thousand oylos on the old misbech, he should have been able to bring 400,000 oylos. Back of the envelope arithmetic on the new misbech. How many did he bring? 142,000. There should have been enough space for it. It shouldn't have been a problem. Even though 142,000 sounds like a big number, but at the same time if you do the math, if he was able to bring a thousand on the misbech in the chashashos of of Moshe Rabbeinu, why couldn't he bring 142,000 over here? So it says Rebbi Yosi, I disagree with you Rebbi Yosi. The psukim are not kashashos of him. They're not supposed to be taken literally. Elo ma kotmi chacham. What does it mean that the misbech was too small? It means something completely different. We're not talking about the new misbech. We're talking about the old misbech. The old misbech, Moshe Rabbeinu's misbech, was deemed to be too small, too short so to speak. Kado Elo ma chacham Elo ma kotmi nanas uposel avoyda. It's like somebody will say about someone else, you know, he's nanas, he's too small, he can't do the avoyda. It's not really too small, he's really posel. But we want to be fine. We don't want to say he's posel. So we say he's too small from doing it. It's in the same vein that the Torah at that point, when Hamelech had disqualified Moshe Rabbeinu's misbech, up until that point anytime a misbech was a korban was brought, it was brought on Moshe Rabbeinu's misbech. They had it in the midbar, they had it all the years that they were in the Mishkan in Shiloh and in in Nov and Givon. But now that misbech was going to be posel. So instead of saying the misbech was rendered posel, what do we say? It was It was said that it was too small. So it's a bit zu klein. But really, we're not talking about the new misbech cuz the new misbech wasn't too small. The new misbech was able to handle at least 400,000 oylos. And all they brought was 142,000. So it shouldn't have been a problem. So it says Rebbi Yehuda Sha'arei Avoda Rebbi Yosi, didn't Rebbi Yosi make a good chashbon? How could Rebbi Yehuda hold that the new misbech was too small? If the old misbech was able to bring a thousand, why can't this handle 142,000? So the Gemara says Rebbi Yehuda tamei Rebbi Yehuda shetasa. And Rebbi Yosi shetasa. A whole other braysa. Domem misbech Moshe gadol hayah. That Moshe Rabbeinu's misbech was really much katan than the braysa chamesh amos oyrach chamesh amos roychav. It was something that Rebbi Yosi holds. That the misbech achi tzayin that was in the Mishkan was 5 by 5. Even though that's what it says, it's not what it means. It says over here and it says in a positive when you have describing usually you think that the is about the big referring to the is an interesting Rashi says it's referring either to or to stop because he has lived at the end of says either describing by a or by but regardless in that context it says the word and just like all the measurements that you have was discussing you were supposed to measure from the middle meaning it's that measurement from the middle in each direction the will explain so too when we say that the of was 5 by 5 it means from the middle of the it was 5 so if you're at the point you can go 5 in each direction meaning it's not 5 by 5 it's really 10 by 10 what do you see in that all measurements are from the middle real armor it says that a explains when it says it means even though it says maybe it means the entire area is 12 by 12 all directions it's 12 so it's even though it says 12 it's really 24 so too over here even though it says 5 it's really 10 if it's 10 by 10 then the area of the of was much bigger it didn't just have one Rashi says the is if you do the math it's going to end up with 6 amos. So, six by six, which is 36 amos. If that's the case, how much bigger is Hamelech's new mizbeach versus Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbeach? Moshe Rabbeinu's is six by six, that's 36. Hamelech's is 20 by 20, which is 400. 400 is approximately 11 times bigger than 36. 36 times 11 is going to be 396. So, it's approximately 11 times bigger. If that's the case, then you have a cheshbon that is Moshe Rabbeinu's mizbeach can handle 1,000 olos, then should be able to handle at least 11 times more than that, which is 11,000. How much did it handle? 122 142,000. That's what the Aish says. I know. Yehuda says, "No way it could have done that." That's what the pasuk means. It was too small, and that's why Hamelech had to be mekadesh the ritspa of the azara. Says the Gemara for Rabbi Yosi, does Rabbi Yosi not hold of the gezeira shava revua revua? Rabbi Yehuda had a gezeira shava that even though it says the mizbeach was five by five, really it was 10 by 10. How does he come to 10 by 10? Cuz he has a gezeira shava. He has a gezeira shava between the word that it says there in the parsha and the word revua that it says by Yechezkel. What about Rabbi Yosi? He also holds a gezeira shava, but he holds the gezeira shava was applied to the height. Rabbi Yosi can make a gezeira shava begoyva hu degoyva. It's and it's not revua revua from the mizbeach chitzon of the mishkan to Yechezkel's mizbeach, but rather it's revua revua. The gezeira shava is to a different place, to the mizbeach p'nimi of the mishkan. It's from the mizbeach chitzon in the mishkan to the mizbeach p'nimi, and it teaches me a halacha regarding the height. The tanur into the braisa of Shamai's k'masoi. Divrei chitzon divrei Rabbi Yehuda. The pasuk says that the mizbeach chitzon was supposed to be three amos tall. Rabbi Yehuda says literally. Here Rabbi Yosi says nemacha revua, he's the one that has the gezeira shava. Nemacha revua malcha degoyva pishnayim k'goyva. Just like with the mizbeach p'nimi where it says revua, the height was twice the length and the width, cuz the mizbeach p'nimi was one amo, it was very small. It was one amo by one amo, and the height was two amos. So, the ratio between the height and each one of its walls was two to one. Half ton k'goyva. so to say here too it had to be two times. And being that what was the square according to of the was five by five. It was ten by ten. It was five by five and the height had to be two times that. So the height is going to end up being ten and that's what teaches me. According to you that the height of the was double the measurements of its walls. And being that the length and the width of the square was five so the height was ten. You know that that's what you use to use to tell me that it wasn't five by five it was ten by ten just like you use to teach you a regarding the height of the that just like the the height was two times it was two to it was a two to one ratio. So to the height of the two to one ratio as well. So if the is a square five by five the height is going to be ten that the height of the was that surrounded the was five cubits. The we're saying that it was ten if that's the case was standing on the doing the the the that way that everybody sees him doing it. And for some reason it doesn't make sense but everybody sees the doing the of the maybe it's near it doesn't make sense. I'm not comfortable with that. Meaning if the height of the is five and the height of the is ten and the is standing on top of the obviously doing what he needs to do so you could see right in. That means you don't even need to be standing outside you don't even need binoculars. It's so simple you can just stand clearly and you know exactly what's And he says I have I have a fundamental problem with that. Told I disagree with you. What do you No way. You're right. The says that the height of the of the that's surrounded curtains that surrounded the five What was it really five What the purpose of the climb was to surround the that surrounded the Now how tall were the Not the themselves were 10 Everybody It is no way that these were any shorter than the And if the were 10 and the By the way continues climb It says clearly that the were 15 So your whole predicated that you have a somewhere that says that the were five is 10 The that's Everybody could see it. And that everybody should be able to see it while the But says take two steps backwards. You're right. The says that the But at the same time Could it really be five Number one the of the with 10 The the have to be at least the height of the of the of the And besides I have a that says the were 15 So how do you make sense of all this? Very simple. The answer is very simple. My name is It means that very It's very I hold that the was 10 just like the And the were really not five 15 So when you have that one that says five What what it means is it's five from the Bottom line is was really 10 Amos He learned that from the Gzeira Shava Rav that had to be two times. That what is the possuk mean when it says sholosh Amos komos? It means misfas soiv avun umaylah. The soiv which was at the six Amos point of the mizbeach up until the kronos which made up the last Amos. The distance between six and nine is three. That's what it's referring to. Rebbi Yehuda, Rebbi Yehuda, what did he do with the Gzeira Shava Rav so we had that already and we test on the base Gzeira Shava Baruch who the komer. He learned the Gzeira Shava The Gemara is just khazering this point not to teach me the height of the mizbeach achitzna he didn't learn it from the mizbeach apnimi but rather he learned it from the mizbeach of Yekhezkel. Rebbi Yehuda, how come is khazering why is Rebbi Yehuda not worried about the fact that you could see the koyeh because according to Rebbi Yehuda the height of the khatzer of the curtains of the khatzer was really only five Amos and the mizbeach was three Amos. The koyeh is standing on top of the mizbeach shouldn't he be able to see in? So the Gemara says that you could see in a little bit but the koyeh is khazi avoided a little the other way miskhazi because there isn't that it's five Amos is the koyeh khatzer. The koyeh the mizbeach is three Amos the koyeh is standing so yeah that you could see the koyeh's head you could see part of the koyeh but you can't actually see the avoyda. Rebbi Yehuda had a problem because according to Rebbi Yoisi the mizbeach was 10 Amos and his shita that the koyeh khatzer is only five Amos the koyeh is standing on top of the mizbeach he would be able to see everything. That's something Rebbi Yehuda had a problem with but this in and of itself was not something that Rebbi Yehuda had a problem.